Don't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.
The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management. TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM. TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure (divisions/departments) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a "cost centre" and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique.
People like to blame accountants for this, but that's because... accounting is a different department. Sure, this "hairball" IT system I'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else's fault, but that "chargeback" system, well accounting is in charge of that aren't they!
FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek. It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book. It massages the ego by implying that yes, you are being looked down upon, you should be more important and given more freedom and control ("IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum"); it's all someone else's fault ("hard to get the business leaders to step up"); and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ("full employment for accountants"). Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars, all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords (unsurprising given the reference material).
By the way, most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying. It can be, but don't for a minute assume it's also easier. One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management.
The US is not refusing to trade with Costa Rica, it is refusing to import sugar only. It is not some "fair play" trade arrangement, it has targeted a specific industry to lobby internally on it's behalf. Then there's the question whether the whole thing is really protectionism of US sugar production. This is how "free trade" works, by calling itself free trade whilst being nothing of the sort.
Worse, this isn't about trade. Not to the Costa Ricans. It's about sovereign issues, manipulation of internal politics to overturn the will of the people.
This is "news" because Obama was very popular internationally because they were hoping for less of this crap.
People aren't going to implement encryption, but their software might implement and do it all for them.
The consumer mindset is that if it was important the software would take care of it for them. If that sounds like criticism, well it is, but not of consumers. They should be right, partly because they think they are paying (in $ or advert eyeballs) for the software to take care of whatever is important, and partly because it simply wont work any other way. It would be pointless if I installed encryption software on my email client, because I'd need to get everyone I email to have compatible encryption and for them to use it.
It shouldn't even take much industry co-operation to get the ball rolling, according to this more than half of email is conducted through MS clients. Add Yahoo, Google and Apple and you have 90% (admittedly, some of those clients are quite old).
Property searches used to only include checking title, open planning applications and mining. Only last month did the land registry link up with the Environment Agency to provide flood risk information. It is still quite basic, apparently doing no more than linking a postcode to a situation on this map. Few people read (or are even given) the results of searches, they just rely on their lawyer pointing things out.
Many of the major floods seen in the news here in recent years have been extraordinary stuff, which would be classed as low risk category anyway. There's an article on the BBC talks about that in relation to Cockermouth (yes we do have very silly names for places in Britain), while the #1 comment there has a very important point: land use is extremely significant and isn't factored into the flood risk maps. The flooding a couple of years ago in Hull was actually blamed in large part on people paving their driveways, resulting in massive run-off with minimal water soaking away. This is a massive contributor to flooding, to such an extent that "we have identified areas at tops of hills that are at risk of surface water flooding".
For what it's worth you will have increased premiums if you live in a flood plain. That is, if you thought to ask for flooding cover. Usually if there is extensive damage to a flooded property the insurance company won't pay out if it happens a second time, or only above a massive excess. This doesn't seem to cause a problem when it comes to sell property - unlike cars where you are obliged to state if an insurance company has written off the car (though nobody does, which is why you should always get your own insurer to check for you, though no, nobody does that either).
Why build a space elevator all the way to the moon? Isn't the biggest problem by far just escaping Earth?
The cannon might not be as good as an elevator but it may turn out to be a more practical possibility. For manned missions it can still be highly beneficial because it minimises what needs to be sent up by rocket, which spends most of it's energy propelling propellant. The manned rocket only needs to get the men to rendezvous with the gear that's already been (much more cheaply) shot up, thus minimising the fuel needed to push gear, in turn minimising the fuel needed to push fuel and as an added bonus there is much less strain on the rocket itself.
If we're not going to have our say on the law, why should we respect or uphold it?
I was looking for the true source of a quote I recall from the game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, but apparently that is the original source:
free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will so burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
Evently I'm not the only one for whom the line struck a chord - one of my google hits was referencing it to another quote of relevance:
“This administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but with those who seek it to be known. The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
– President Barack Obama, January 21, 2009, as he overturned Bush’s order restricting access to White House records
Does this have much value outside of the US? Here in UK our legit internet sources of actual TV and movies is quite limited and I see no sign of support for iPlayer, 4oD or Demand5.
Some years ago, as a university student, I visited St. Petersburg. Several times we ate in a restaurant near the hostel, this restaurant was evidently where russianbrides.com or whoever arranged initial meets between Westerners (mostly American) and their prospective brides. The voice of the American traveller is notoriously loud (or carries well, YMMV) and we had little choice but to listen in. It didn't take long before we were actively eavesdropping and being thoroughly entertained and appalled.
These guys were looking for robots. I wouldn't quite say slaves, but something in effect very similar - women who will serve them, be obedient but will find this a quite satisfying life.
Of course I over-generalise: we would be picking up the choicest lines from around a dozen couples, probably many of the men were really just rather sad, severely lacking in confidence and/or social skills. I've since watched a couple of documentaries (though on Asian brides) which to be supported my earlier observations. But parent reminded me instantly of some of these guys.
[...] the fact that this is modded "Interesting" instead of "Troll" says something disturbing about slashdot. I can only imagine that a reasonable number of readers agree with it. Presumably embittered male readers.
As you see in some people's sigs around here,/. has no -1 disagree option and no, -1 overrated is not a substitute. This also goes the other way: +1 interesting is NOT the same as +1 agree. You will probably find there are many things you find very interesting wholly because you do not agree with it.
They could rewrite the laws that define nude pictures of those under 18 as automatically pornography.
Which would be "introducing new legislation".
(Amendments are new legislation. It would likely be done through Statutory Implement, which is relatively quick, but completely new legislation often takes that route also - there's no substansive difference.)
is anyone really that hell-bent on getting a movie that they'd rather pirate it than wait 28 days?
That's movie-studio thinking. And yeah, on the face of it, it does make sense - break the law, commit a morally wrong act for the sake of 28 days?
But that forgets what movies have become. Torrents being free is only half of it - the other half is service. Piracy is fiercely competitive on service: they are quire remarkable in getting whatever you want, however you want, as quickly as they possibly can. The studios have taken some steps towards competing: cinema releases are increasingly worldwide and DVD releases have a shorter delay. But they're not really close - it's like the big airlines trying to do the low-cost airline thing, they just don't have the mentality for it.
It's why some people pirate despite having their cinema card, a Netflix sub and shelves of store-bought movies. It's not that they aren't prepared to pay, it's just piracy is the better service. Sure, plenty of pirates are doing it just because it's free, but there's a big chunk of people with a range of different reasons. Each step the studios take towards competing with piracy is a chunk of people for whom paying becomes their better choice. Each step away from competing with piracy, like delaying Netflix for 28 days, a bunch of people turn on the torrents. Many will actually be annoyed about not being able to get what they want by paying for it.
I'm not trying to defend pirates, I've never illegally downloaded a movie in my life (though I'll not pretend to having never watched any). But there's what's right and there's what is. Quite basic market forces.
In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves. They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted". Their login for general usage is full administrator and bypasses websense, while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time). Our email attachment limits are 2mb ("it takes up space on the server") and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do it, so I went home and put it onto a USB stick.
They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers. Despite pretty much being able to do everything on their work-paid cell phone, not having to multi-task or whatever they have brand-new machines. When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC. Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair). In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.
IT is all about convenience for IT. All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive. They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself. I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond. It's quite embarrassing when a client turns up asking for a simple copy of a report in a hurry and it takes me 10 minutes, they think I must have forgotten so they ask reception to call up and remind me they're late for their meeting. I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle".
All the procedures are laughable. Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site. I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT). It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.
But let's not get all confused and think I'm bashing IT here. I can say pretty much the same thing about every single department. Like how the time it takes me to obtain new propellant pencil leads costs the firm 16x the price of the leads. If I kept one carton for work then stole the rest of the box it would be cheaper for the firm than following procedure.
As regards other managers, few have the slightest clue about IT. Those that do just work it to their advantage - they get preferential treatment so it makes them look good.
Working in accountancy (and doubly-so for audit) a well-commented file is absolutely necessary. Like (I suspect) computer code, the file should stand on it's own - a competent fellow professional should be able to fully understand it and be comfortable reaching the same conclusions. This is not only good practice for the benefit of your firm but a professional requirement: my institute comes along every few years, selects a few files and basically if they have difficulty understanding the file (or worse, reached different conclusions) then you're in a lot of trouble.
Many of the points in TFA hold up well however - explaining things unnecessarily merely adds bloat, irritates and wastes the time of the reader by telling them obvious, patronising or pointless things. And yes, a perfect accounts job doesn't require any explanation because the schedules will be self-explanatory.
The thing is though, if you're doing anything complex (earning your salary), have to make corrections (hackjobs) or judgements then you need explanations. Manager's will be reviewing your work and you or a colleague will be referring to it next year. If explanations go out of date, update them - if they had value before then value is there in updating them. Yes there is a cost, so there is a tradeoff vs their value to the file. The key is competent fellow professional. Assume your colleague will be reviewing your work and be satisfied that they will be able to understand and appreciate it.
If you're just churning out "stuff that works" then you're at best a technician.
It's not really a case of "cutting the cord" or doing away with landlines. All that's happening is POTS is replaced by VoIP and the copper is being upgraded to fibre.
Yes, POTS is pretty much redundant and I can't even remember the last time I used the house phone, or a house phone number called my mobile. I resent paying BT nearly as much as I pay my ISP, simply for powering the line that I only use for broadband. In terms of cost, other than international calls it's probably a lot cheaper to just increase your cell plan than to pay for a landline (except for businesses). This is all rather beside the point though, land lines are used for internet now, POTS is just in the way.
Yes there is the possibility of using mobile internet and doing away with the landline, but it's not really practical for a lot of people. Plans (in UK anyway) are expensive (if you work out the cross-subsidy), nothing like "unlimited", speeds are highly variable, unreliable and high latency unsuitable for gaming. Xbox? Mass-scale HD TV on demand?
ISPs are to incur expenditure at the request of and for the benefit of the record and film industries. Just because A isn't handing over cash to B does not mean there is no transaction. It's the same principle as, for example, if a charity wishes to hire a hall for an event and the hall-owner decides to make it free since it's a charity, the charity has to record the market rate for the hire as a donation in their accounts.
As regards tax, "stealth tax" is a common term in the UK (at least in political campaigning and media) for basically anything the government does that has some kind of hidden cost to subjects in order to achieve government objectives. The Wiki details some relatively clear-cut examples, perhaps the closest is that a large portion of National Lottery income must be spent on things the government is supposed to be paying for (and happily holds itself responsible for any good arising). But in general usage it's applied to literally anything that benefits government at the expense of it's subjects. That it does not appear to be a "tax" is entirely the point.
Anecdotally (from just browsing the individual indexes) however there appears to be a strong correlation - with various exceptions, some of which can be accounted for by e.g. natural resources. There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states), but that's not much of a substitute for human rights and freedoms.
Of course, correlation is not causation, although intuitively it makes a lot of sense - wealthier people seem to consider themselves more important, demand more power, education, have better communications...
My assumption is that the better a country's economy, the better the human rights. Anyone have a good study?
Resources spent on car safety this year: trillions of $-worth? (in car production, car design, roads, education, extra fuel burnt due to weight...
Resources spent fighting cancer this year: trillions of $-worth?
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid [insert regulation here, say motorway regulations]: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to [insert regulation here]: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of [insert random thing here]: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
I don't wish to defend or imply that the airport regulations are sensible or effective, but I'm not sure some of the criticisms are either (I don't just mean as regards parent). Of course by far the most terrible thing about 9/11 was the lives lost, but we need also consider the other effects of 9/11 in considering the response. For example, it nearly undermined the entire insurance industry for large projects (ramifications of this would have had a bigger impact on your life than the airport security, even if you commute to work on a 747).
To be fair the iPhone is an extremely significant piece of technology, both as a consumer handset and driving forward technological change. True, the new phone probably won't include much in the way of technological breakthrough - or even true innovation, but it will set the standard of the entire mobile phone industry by putting the tech in the hands of the mass market.
Anyway, if you're the kind of person who reads/. it's kind of expected that when a friend imparts that they intend to buy a 3GS, you should be able to respond "looking like a new one isn't being announced until June, then there's some lead time so yeah no point waiting around for the next one".
There's still a little room for conspiracy theories. From TFA:
This is not the first campaign the Morters have launched to try to influence the charts - last year they attempted to get Rick Astley to the top spot.
Rick Astley being signed to Sony BMG (as was the other contender and eventual winner). John Morter denied he worked for Sony, which of course means it must be true.
Last year there was also a campaign whereby X-Factor winner Alexandra Burke's (BMG) cover of Halleluja was "competing" with Jeff Buckley's (Columbia) and Leonard Cohen's (Columbia) - but not the other famous cover by kd lang (Nonesuch).
Columbia's parent company is.... Sony. Nonesuch isn't.
TFA also notes the battle between Chocolate Salty Balls (Columbia) and Spice Girls (Virgin). But wait! That Virgin wasn't Richard Branston's Virgin, it was then tied up with EMI and their Wiki has various connections to... Columbia.
Disclaimer: OK, so EMI's Columbia isnt the same as the Sony Columbia, although they were until 1930's, but mere technicalities shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of a good story, even if it is bullshit. Props to the BBC for asking the question and then making sure to get a complete answer though.
I was just going to post this. I'm not sure where OP get's it from as the linked article does not make the inaccurate claim.
On the other hand it may be the first download-only song to top the chart despite not being on general release? perhaps not as significant a milestone but arguably a bigger feat.
If Android is successful the cell phone industry repeats the MS-DOS (and perhaps IBM-PC) scenario. The "other guy" is even Apple.
What happens next is practically nobody makes good money except for Google and Apple, particularly not the cell network cartel who have to become mere telecoms utilities. They'll directly lose half their business (phone distribution) and the telecoms side will have to compete on things like pricing instead of phone hardware exclusives.
The telecoms companies absolutely do not want Android. Ironically, they are having to accept it because for some carriers is all they have against the iPhone - one exclusive that went too far.
Disclaimer: this is based on UK where all carriers have pretty much 99% coverage.
In what ways are these charities? I thought charity is about giving to people in need, not supporting political organisations.
Very few charities are not political organisations. I work in financial audit and our firm is something of a charity specialist. I cannot think of a single one which is not politically active. Try to think of a charity and then consider why and how they may be trying to influence government and the public - they're highly likely to be doing it.
To be clear, doing so is often an effective use of their resources in attempting to achieve their objectives. You may be thinking of your $10 donation being a few food parcels for some "save the kids in Africa" campaign, but it's going to take a lot more than that.
For what it's worth I wouldn't trust research findings from a charitable organisation either. Aside from obviously having an organisational bias, they likely got the money from a grant (or paid a researcher similarly) and the application will specify outcomes and milestones and you can be damn sure they don't involve "taking appropriate action based on scientific results". A charity's accounts, prospectus and websites etc (in UK anyway) specify the trustees and their occupation - I consider this disclosure the most important of all...
As part of the audit we have to consider if the charity is really doing the work of government and it's often a tricky question. Sometimes it's quite clear that if the charity wasn't doing it, the government (local or national) would have to do so, and they're usually providing a lot of the funding. I suspect a lot of what the government claims to do are things they pay a charity to do.
I don't see the point with an ION netbook. A netbook is a highly portable version of a laptop which means smaller, lighter, excellent battery life and very cheap. The thing you can carry around in a bag without thinking about it because it is no hassle to carry and it doesn't really matter if it gets stolen/dropped anyway.
"Netbooks" are now just bad laptops. Compared to a low-end laptop they have the same price, similar weight, similar dimensions... Usually I can buy a slightly better spec low-end laptop for cheaper! These over-spec netbooks do not fit the purpose, they are desktop/laptop replacements, not secondary machines.
I'd take a £250 netbook with a 9" screen, 32gb SSD and just enough horsepower for basic web and spreadsheets over a £400 netbook-come-laptop. Even if you were giving them away (well OK, unless I could ebay the £400 one for more than £250).
Where ION does interest me is nettops and HTPC - though the latter seem to be getting less interesting generally due to some good boxes coming out that fit all the requirements plus have the advantages that come with being wholly designed for the task. For nettops the advantage is clearer since it's a desktop replacement, which has what the hardware has become.
I suspect the move is connected with Freeview (a non-profit organisation, of which BBC is a member, that runs the free digital broadcasts) and the digital switchover. The BBC are probably thinking that if they cut their HD bitrate there can be more HD channels (and I assume more people would be able to get a good-enough signal). Or it just costs less.
I wasn't aware that MySpace had previously owned the company? There is nothing in TFA nor on Wiki which has a company history. I'm going to assume you're wrong on this for the time being (otherwise you've picked up on the most significant and interesting part of the story that Wired has completely missed).
I kept it (over) simply on the whole insolvency/bankruptcy thing because the area is very complicated with lots of options (particularly in US and UK) and it was not important to my point, and in practice one rarely comes without the other.
To respond to some other posts:
- Yeah their lawyers would have got paid for their work on this deal. Any historic debt owed to them however will fall in with all the other creditors. It's illegal to give any preferential treatment to any creditor (other than securities, mentioned below, which are "fair" because they are published and hence all other creditors knew [or should have known...] about that beforehand). People doing work after insolvency get paid for that work because otherwise nobody would do any work!
So where will the money go? Broadly:
1. Creditors with fixed security - usually a major lender (e.g. bank loan) will be secured on specific assets such as owned premises, in this case it appears that security was placed on the brand and trademarks (from TFA: "The asset sale to MySpace Music was part of a foreclosure process which resulted from the lien certain secured creditors had on all the assets of imeem"). In event of default (not necessarily insolvency etc!) the creditor more or less owns the asset they had the charge on - if it is insufficient to cover the debt the remainder falls in with the unsecured creditors.
2. Preferential creditors i.e. employees. Some countries also include taxation and debts arising from court cases.
3. Creditors with floating charges - this security floats above all of the assets of the company and only crystallises in the event of insolvency etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.
The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management. TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM. TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure (divisions/departments) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a "cost centre" and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique.
People like to blame accountants for this, but that's because... accounting is a different department. Sure, this "hairball" IT system I'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else's fault, but that "chargeback" system, well accounting is in charge of that aren't they!
FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek. It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book. It massages the ego by implying that yes, you are being looked down upon, you should be more important and given more freedom and control ("IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum"); it's all someone else's fault ("hard to get the business leaders to step up"); and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ("full employment for accountants"). Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars, all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords (unsurprising given the reference material).
By the way, most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying. It can be, but don't for a minute assume it's also easier. One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management.
The US is not refusing to trade with Costa Rica, it is refusing to import sugar only. It is not some "fair play" trade arrangement, it has targeted a specific industry to lobby internally on it's behalf. Then there's the question whether the whole thing is really protectionism of US sugar production. This is how "free trade" works, by calling itself free trade whilst being nothing of the sort.
Worse, this isn't about trade. Not to the Costa Ricans. It's about sovereign issues, manipulation of internal politics to overturn the will of the people.
This is "news" because Obama was very popular internationally because they were hoping for less of this crap.
People aren't going to implement encryption, but their software might implement and do it all for them.
The consumer mindset is that if it was important the software would take care of it for them. If that sounds like criticism, well it is, but not of consumers. They should be right, partly because they think they are paying (in $ or advert eyeballs) for the software to take care of whatever is important, and partly because it simply wont work any other way. It would be pointless if I installed encryption software on my email client, because I'd need to get everyone I email to have compatible encryption and for them to use it.
It shouldn't even take much industry co-operation to get the ball rolling, according to this more than half of email is conducted through MS clients. Add Yahoo, Google and Apple and you have 90% (admittedly, some of those clients are quite old).
Property searches used to only include checking title, open planning applications and mining. Only last month did the land registry link up with the Environment Agency to provide flood risk information. It is still quite basic, apparently doing no more than linking a postcode to a situation on this map. Few people read (or are even given) the results of searches, they just rely on their lawyer pointing things out.
Many of the major floods seen in the news here in recent years have been extraordinary stuff, which would be classed as low risk category anyway. There's an article on the BBC talks about that in relation to Cockermouth (yes we do have very silly names for places in Britain), while the #1 comment there has a very important point: land use is extremely significant and isn't factored into the flood risk maps. The flooding a couple of years ago in Hull was actually blamed in large part on people paving their driveways, resulting in massive run-off with minimal water soaking away. This is a massive contributor to flooding, to such an extent that "we have identified areas at tops of hills that are at risk of surface water flooding".
For what it's worth you will have increased premiums if you live in a flood plain. That is, if you thought to ask for flooding cover. Usually if there is extensive damage to a flooded property the insurance company won't pay out if it happens a second time, or only above a massive excess. This doesn't seem to cause a problem when it comes to sell property - unlike cars where you are obliged to state if an insurance company has written off the car (though nobody does, which is why you should always get your own insurer to check for you, though no, nobody does that either).
Why build a space elevator all the way to the moon? Isn't the biggest problem by far just escaping Earth?
The cannon might not be as good as an elevator but it may turn out to be a more practical possibility. For manned missions it can still be highly beneficial because it minimises what needs to be sent up by rocket, which spends most of it's energy propelling propellant. The manned rocket only needs to get the men to rendezvous with the gear that's already been (much more cheaply) shot up, thus minimising the fuel needed to push gear, in turn minimising the fuel needed to push fuel and as an added bonus there is much less strain on the rocket itself.
If we're not going to have our say on the law, why should we respect or uphold it?
I was looking for the true source of a quote I recall from the game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, but apparently that is the original source:
Evently I'm not the only one for whom the line struck a chord - one of my google hits was referencing it to another quote of relevance:
Does this have much value outside of the US? Here in UK our legit internet sources of actual TV and movies is quite limited and I see no sign of support for iPlayer, 4oD or Demand5.
Some years ago, as a university student, I visited St. Petersburg. Several times we ate in a restaurant near the hostel, this restaurant was evidently where russianbrides.com or whoever arranged initial meets between Westerners (mostly American) and their prospective brides. The voice of the American traveller is notoriously loud (or carries well, YMMV) and we had little choice but to listen in. It didn't take long before we were actively eavesdropping and being thoroughly entertained and appalled.
These guys were looking for robots. I wouldn't quite say slaves, but something in effect very similar - women who will serve them, be obedient but will find this a quite satisfying life.
Of course I over-generalise: we would be picking up the choicest lines from around a dozen couples, probably many of the men were really just rather sad, severely lacking in confidence and/or social skills. I've since watched a couple of documentaries (though on Asian brides) which to be supported my earlier observations. But parent reminded me instantly of some of these guys.
As you see in some people's sigs around here, /. has no -1 disagree option and no, -1 overrated is not a substitute. This also goes the other way: +1 interesting is NOT the same as +1 agree. You will probably find there are many things you find very interesting wholly because you do not agree with it.
Which would be "introducing new legislation".
(Amendments are new legislation. It would likely be done through Statutory Implement, which is relatively quick, but completely new legislation often takes that route also - there's no substansive difference.)
That's movie-studio thinking. And yeah, on the face of it, it does make sense - break the law, commit a morally wrong act for the sake of 28 days?
But that forgets what movies have become. Torrents being free is only half of it - the other half is service. Piracy is fiercely competitive on service: they are quire remarkable in getting whatever you want, however you want, as quickly as they possibly can. The studios have taken some steps towards competing: cinema releases are increasingly worldwide and DVD releases have a shorter delay. But they're not really close - it's like the big airlines trying to do the low-cost airline thing, they just don't have the mentality for it.
It's why some people pirate despite having their cinema card, a Netflix sub and shelves of store-bought movies. It's not that they aren't prepared to pay, it's just piracy is the better service. Sure, plenty of pirates are doing it just because it's free, but there's a big chunk of people with a range of different reasons. Each step the studios take towards competing with piracy is a chunk of people for whom paying becomes their better choice. Each step away from competing with piracy, like delaying Netflix for 28 days, a bunch of people turn on the torrents. Many will actually be annoyed about not being able to get what they want by paying for it.
I'm not trying to defend pirates, I've never illegally downloaded a movie in my life (though I'll not pretend to having never watched any). But there's what's right and there's what is. Quite basic market forces.
In my experience the IT dept generally has rules for other people and rules for themselves. They "know what they are doing" while everybody else "can't be trusted". Their login for general usage is full administrator and bypasses websense, while I am barred from sites "listed as general business" (only sites pre-approved by IT are allowed, which they make very clear they do not do because they don't want people asking them all the time). Our email attachment limits are 2mb ("it takes up space on the server") and FTP is outright barred - even though one time it was the only way for a client to send me files IT wouldn't do it, so I went home and put it onto a USB stick.
They install whatever they like, including such productivity tools as BBC news sports tickers. Despite pretty much being able to do everything on their work-paid cell phone, not having to multi-task or whatever they have brand-new machines. When another member of staff requires a new PC, they get an IT staff's PC and IT get a new PC. Despite the general staff doing work where screen real estate is highly productive, their monitors are 15" and 17" while IT and managers have 19" (although they were quite savvy and gave the partners 21"; monitors are the new bigger desk and chair). In my job where we do quite a lot of printing, speed and quality are important, IT also have the best printer - yet it took a week for them to notice when I unplugged it one Friday night.
IT is all about convenience for IT. All our productivity stuff, which at any given moment 99% of staff is running at any given moment, is quite server intensive. They're all on the same server, while low-intensity stuff rarely used has three idle servers all to itself. I spend a significant portion of my time waiting for the server to respond. It's quite embarrassing when a client turns up asking for a simple copy of a report in a hurry and it takes me 10 minutes, they think I must have forgotten so they ask reception to call up and remind me they're late for their meeting. I pointed out once that the servers could be rebalanced to distribute the load but was told "that would be too much hassle".
All the procedures are laughable. Despite almost completely phasing paper filing out, all staff's basic logins can delete data files and all the backups are kept on a shelf on site. I could obliterate the lot in one minute of madness (probably induced by dealing with IT). It would take me longer to copy it all to a couple of USB sticks, but nobody would notice until they got the blackmail letters or it was on the news.
But let's not get all confused and think I'm bashing IT here. I can say pretty much the same thing about every single department. Like how the time it takes me to obtain new propellant pencil leads costs the firm 16x the price of the leads. If I kept one carton for work then stole the rest of the box it would be cheaper for the firm than following procedure.
As regards other managers, few have the slightest clue about IT. Those that do just work it to their advantage - they get preferential treatment so it makes them look good.
Working in accountancy (and doubly-so for audit) a well-commented file is absolutely necessary. Like (I suspect) computer code, the file should stand on it's own - a competent fellow professional should be able to fully understand it and be comfortable reaching the same conclusions. This is not only good practice for the benefit of your firm but a professional requirement: my institute comes along every few years, selects a few files and basically if they have difficulty understanding the file (or worse, reached different conclusions) then you're in a lot of trouble.
Many of the points in TFA hold up well however - explaining things unnecessarily merely adds bloat, irritates and wastes the time of the reader by telling them obvious, patronising or pointless things. And yes, a perfect accounts job doesn't require any explanation because the schedules will be self-explanatory.
The thing is though, if you're doing anything complex (earning your salary), have to make corrections (hackjobs) or judgements then you need explanations. Manager's will be reviewing your work and you or a colleague will be referring to it next year. If explanations go out of date, update them - if they had value before then value is there in updating them. Yes there is a cost, so there is a tradeoff vs their value to the file. The key is competent fellow professional. Assume your colleague will be reviewing your work and be satisfied that they will be able to understand and appreciate it.
If you're just churning out "stuff that works" then you're at best a technician.
It's not really a case of "cutting the cord" or doing away with landlines. All that's happening is POTS is replaced by VoIP and the copper is being upgraded to fibre.
Yes, POTS is pretty much redundant and I can't even remember the last time I used the house phone, or a house phone number called my mobile. I resent paying BT nearly as much as I pay my ISP, simply for powering the line that I only use for broadband. In terms of cost, other than international calls it's probably a lot cheaper to just increase your cell plan than to pay for a landline (except for businesses). This is all rather beside the point though, land lines are used for internet now, POTS is just in the way.
Yes there is the possibility of using mobile internet and doing away with the landline, but it's not really practical for a lot of people. Plans (in UK anyway) are expensive (if you work out the cross-subsidy), nothing like "unlimited", speeds are highly variable, unreliable and high latency unsuitable for gaming. Xbox? Mass-scale HD TV on demand?
ISPs are to incur expenditure at the request of and for the benefit of the record and film industries. Just because A isn't handing over cash to B does not mean there is no transaction. It's the same principle as, for example, if a charity wishes to hire a hall for an event and the hall-owner decides to make it free since it's a charity, the charity has to record the market rate for the hire as a donation in their accounts.
As regards tax, "stealth tax" is a common term in the UK (at least in political campaigning and media) for basically anything the government does that has some kind of hidden cost to subjects in order to achieve government objectives. The Wiki details some relatively clear-cut examples, perhaps the closest is that a large portion of National Lottery income must be spent on things the government is supposed to be paying for (and happily holds itself responsible for any good arising). But in general usage it's applied to literally anything that benefits government at the expense of it's subjects. That it does not appear to be a "tax" is entirely the point.
After a brief googling I couldn't find a decent study comparing the likes of human rights (or at least press freedom), and GDP (or at least economic freedom).
Anecdotally (from just browsing the individual indexes) however there appears to be a strong correlation - with various exceptions, some of which can be accounted for by e.g. natural resources. There are plenty studies showing strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP (even between US states), but that's not much of a substitute for human rights and freedoms.
Of course, correlation is not causation, although intuitively it makes a lot of sense - wealthier people seem to consider themselves more important, demand more power, education, have better communications...
My assumption is that the better a country's economy, the better the human rights. Anyone have a good study?
Resources spent on car safety this year: trillions of $-worth? (in car production, car design, roads, education, extra fuel burnt due to weight...
Resources spent fighting cancer this year: trillions of $-worth?
Number of people inconvenienced because of stupid [insert regulation here, say motorway regulations]: millions
Number of people losing their livelihood due to [insert regulation here]: probably tens of thousands
Number of people dieing as an indirect cause of [insert random thing here]: probably more than the victims of terrorism this year
I don't wish to defend or imply that the airport regulations are sensible or effective, but I'm not sure some of the criticisms are either (I don't just mean as regards parent). Of course by far the most terrible thing about 9/11 was the lives lost, but we need also consider the other effects of 9/11 in considering the response. For example, it nearly undermined the entire insurance industry for large projects (ramifications of this would have had a bigger impact on your life than the airport security, even if you commute to work on a 747).
To be fair the iPhone is an extremely significant piece of technology, both as a consumer handset and driving forward technological change. True, the new phone probably won't include much in the way of technological breakthrough - or even true innovation, but it will set the standard of the entire mobile phone industry by putting the tech in the hands of the mass market.
Anyway, if you're the kind of person who reads /. it's kind of expected that when a friend imparts that they intend to buy a 3GS, you should be able to respond "looking like a new one isn't being announced until June, then there's some lead time so yeah no point waiting around for the next one".
The key is to grimace so they know you're working
There's still a little room for conspiracy theories. From TFA:
Rick Astley being signed to Sony BMG (as was the other contender and eventual winner). John Morter denied he worked for Sony, which of course means it must be true.
Last year there was also a campaign whereby X-Factor winner Alexandra Burke's (BMG) cover of Halleluja was "competing" with Jeff Buckley's (Columbia) and Leonard Cohen's (Columbia) - but not the other famous cover by kd lang (Nonesuch).
Columbia's parent company is.... Sony. Nonesuch isn't.
TFA also notes the battle between Chocolate Salty Balls (Columbia) and Spice Girls (Virgin). But wait! That Virgin wasn't Richard Branston's Virgin, it was then tied up with EMI and their Wiki has various connections to... Columbia.
Disclaimer: OK, so EMI's Columbia isnt the same as the Sony Columbia, although they were until 1930's, but mere technicalities shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of a good story, even if it is bullshit. Props to the BBC for asking the question and then making sure to get a complete answer though.
I was just going to post this. I'm not sure where OP get's it from as the linked article does not make the inaccurate claim.
On the other hand it may be the first download-only song to top the chart despite not being on general release? perhaps not as significant a milestone but arguably a bigger feat.
If Android is successful the cell phone industry repeats the MS-DOS (and perhaps IBM-PC) scenario. The "other guy" is even Apple.
What happens next is practically nobody makes good money except for Google and Apple, particularly not the cell network cartel who have to become mere telecoms utilities. They'll directly lose half their business (phone distribution) and the telecoms side will have to compete on things like pricing instead of phone hardware exclusives.
The telecoms companies absolutely do not want Android. Ironically, they are having to accept it because for some carriers is all they have against the iPhone - one exclusive that went too far.
Disclaimer: this is based on UK where all carriers have pretty much 99% coverage.
Very few charities are not political organisations. I work in financial audit and our firm is something of a charity specialist. I cannot think of a single one which is not politically active. Try to think of a charity and then consider why and how they may be trying to influence government and the public - they're highly likely to be doing it.
To be clear, doing so is often an effective use of their resources in attempting to achieve their objectives. You may be thinking of your $10 donation being a few food parcels for some "save the kids in Africa" campaign, but it's going to take a lot more than that.
For what it's worth I wouldn't trust research findings from a charitable organisation either. Aside from obviously having an organisational bias, they likely got the money from a grant (or paid a researcher similarly) and the application will specify outcomes and milestones and you can be damn sure they don't involve "taking appropriate action based on scientific results". A charity's accounts, prospectus and websites etc (in UK anyway) specify the trustees and their occupation - I consider this disclosure the most important of all...
As part of the audit we have to consider if the charity is really doing the work of government and it's often a tricky question. Sometimes it's quite clear that if the charity wasn't doing it, the government (local or national) would have to do so, and they're usually providing a lot of the funding. I suspect a lot of what the government claims to do are things they pay a charity to do.
I don't see the point with an ION netbook. A netbook is a highly portable version of a laptop which means smaller, lighter, excellent battery life and very cheap. The thing you can carry around in a bag without thinking about it because it is no hassle to carry and it doesn't really matter if it gets stolen/dropped anyway.
"Netbooks" are now just bad laptops. Compared to a low-end laptop they have the same price, similar weight, similar dimensions... Usually I can buy a slightly better spec low-end laptop for cheaper! These over-spec netbooks do not fit the purpose, they are desktop/laptop replacements, not secondary machines.
I'd take a £250 netbook with a 9" screen, 32gb SSD and just enough horsepower for basic web and spreadsheets over a £400 netbook-come-laptop. Even if you were giving them away (well OK, unless I could ebay the £400 one for more than £250).
Where ION does interest me is nettops and HTPC - though the latter seem to be getting less interesting generally due to some good boxes coming out that fit all the requirements plus have the advantages that come with being wholly designed for the task. For nettops the advantage is clearer since it's a desktop replacement, which has what the hardware has become.
I suspect the move is connected with Freeview (a non-profit organisation, of which BBC is a member, that runs the free digital broadcasts) and the digital switchover. The BBC are probably thinking that if they cut their HD bitrate there can be more HD channels (and I assume more people would be able to get a good-enough signal). Or it just costs less.
I wasn't aware that MySpace had previously owned the company? There is nothing in TFA nor on Wiki which has a company history. I'm going to assume you're wrong on this for the time being (otherwise you've picked up on the most significant and interesting part of the story that Wired has completely missed).
I kept it (over) simply on the whole insolvency/bankruptcy thing because the area is very complicated with lots of options (particularly in US and UK) and it was not important to my point, and in practice one rarely comes without the other.
To respond to some other posts:
- Yeah their lawyers would have got paid for their work on this deal. Any historic debt owed to them however will fall in with all the other creditors. It's illegal to give any preferential treatment to any creditor (other than securities, mentioned below, which are "fair" because they are published and hence all other creditors knew [or should have known...] about that beforehand). People doing work after insolvency get paid for that work because otherwise nobody would do any work!
So where will the money go? Broadly:
1. Creditors with fixed security - usually a major lender (e.g. bank loan) will be secured on specific assets such as owned premises, in this case it appears that security was placed on the brand and trademarks (from TFA: "The asset sale to MySpace Music was part of a foreclosure process which resulted from the lien certain secured creditors had on all the assets of imeem"). In event of default (not necessarily insolvency etc!) the creditor more or less owns the asset they had the charge on - if it is insufficient to cover the debt the remainder falls in with the unsecured creditors.
2. Preferential creditors i.e. employees. Some countries also include taxation and debts arising from court cases.
3. Creditors with floating charges - this security floats above all of the assets of the company and only crystallises in the event of insolvency etc.
4. All other creditors.
5. Shareholders